> well, that's how I'd explain the seeminly varied pursuits of different
> administrations, and even debates with an administration or political
> program (e.g., the neocons). there is a range of possible courses of action
> and no one single path for imperialist domination to travel.
It's kinda hard for those of us on the outside looking in to avoid schematism -- talking in a broad-brush way about "imperialism" or the "ruling class." These are somewhat bloodless abstractions. But then so is the law of gravity.
For what very little it's worth -- I don't get invited to these meetings -- it kinda looks like the "ruling class" is really a loose and rather fluid collection of factions and formations. They have different emphases and interests and no doubt they battle among themselves, sometimes fiercely. We can only surmise.
On the other hand, by virtue of their elite status and their understandable desire to maintain it, they all find themselves under certain imperatives. If you want to rule the world, you have to look at a map and figure out where the important places are. Places that get visited and re-visited by great powers are probably important places.
It's certainly a defensible position to think that notions like "imperialism" or "the ruling class" are not only problematical but chimerical -- that there are no real entities to which these words refer.
It's a position that would surprise me a bit from somebody on lbo-talk, to be sure, but hey, let a hundred flowers bloom.
--
Michael Smith mjs at smithbowen.net http://stopmebeforeivoteagain.org